Efficacy of metacognitive interventions for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920
Erik Andersson, Kristina Aspvall, Greta Schettini, Martin Kraepelien, Josefin Särnholm, Gro Janne Wergeland, Lars-Göran Öst
{"title":"Efficacy of metacognitive interventions for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Erik Andersson, Kristina Aspvall, Greta Schettini, Martin Kraepelien, Josefin Särnholm, Gro Janne Wergeland, Lars-Göran Öst","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metacognitive interventions have received increasing interest the last decade and there is a need to synthesize the evidence of these type of interventions. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis where we investigated the efficacy of metacognitive interventions for adults with psychiatric disorders. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated either metacognitive therapy (MCT; developed by Wells) or metacognitive training (MCTraining; developed by Moritz). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published until May 2024. The final analyses included 21 MCT- and 28 MCTraining studies (in total 3239 individuals). Results showed that MCT was more efficacious than both waiting-list control conditions (<i>g</i> = 1.84) as well as other forms of cognitive behavior therapies (<i>g</i> = 0.43). MCTraining was superior to treatment as usual (<i>g</i> = 0.45), other psychological treatments (<i>g</i> = 0.46) and placebo conditions (<i>g</i> = 0.15). Many of the included studies lacked data on blinding procedures, reporting of inter-rater reliability, treatment adherence, competence, treatment expectancy and pre-registration procedures. We conclude that both MCT and MCTraining are probably efficacious treatments but that future studies need to incorporate more quality aspects in their trial designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"276-302"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2024.2434920","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metacognitive interventions have received increasing interest the last decade and there is a need to synthesize the evidence of these type of interventions. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis where we investigated the efficacy of metacognitive interventions for adults with psychiatric disorders. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated either metacognitive therapy (MCT; developed by Wells) or metacognitive training (MCTraining; developed by Moritz). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published until May 2024. The final analyses included 21 MCT- and 28 MCTraining studies (in total 3239 individuals). Results showed that MCT was more efficacious than both waiting-list control conditions (g = 1.84) as well as other forms of cognitive behavior therapies (g = 0.43). MCTraining was superior to treatment as usual (g = 0.45), other psychological treatments (g = 0.46) and placebo conditions (g = 0.15). Many of the included studies lacked data on blinding procedures, reporting of inter-rater reliability, treatment adherence, competence, treatment expectancy and pre-registration procedures. We conclude that both MCT and MCTraining are probably efficacious treatments but that future studies need to incorporate more quality aspects in their trial designs.

元认知干预对精神疾病的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
元认知干预在过去十年中受到越来越多的关注,有必要综合这些类型的干预的证据。目前的研究是一项更新的系统回顾和荟萃分析,我们调查了元认知干预对成人精神疾病的疗效。我们纳入了调查元认知疗法(MCT;或元认知训练(MCTraining;莫里茨发明的)。Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Ovid和PsycINFO检索到2024年5月之前发表的文章。最终的分析包括21项MCT和28项MCT训练研究(总共3239人)。结果显示,MCT比等候名单对照条件(g = 1.84)和其他形式的认知行为疗法(g = 0.43)更有效。MCTraining优于常规治疗(g = 0.45)、其他心理治疗(g = 0.46)和安慰剂治疗(g = 0.15)。许多纳入的研究缺乏关于盲法程序、评估者间可靠性报告、治疗依从性、能力、治疗预期和预注册程序的数据。我们得出结论,MCT和MCTraining都可能是有效的治疗方法,但未来的研究需要在试验设计中纳入更多的质量方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信